Published Quarterly by C. F. Taylor, 
1520 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, Pa. 


Equity Series, $1.00 per Year. 


Vol. 1. No. VA. 


Entered in Philadelphia Post-Office 
as second-class matter. 


October, 1898. 


Price 5 Cents. 

$2.00 per hundred. 


Price of single copies of 
bxtra Number regular numbers of 

“ Equity Series,” 25 cents. 


POLITICAL EGYPT 

AND THE 

WAY OUT 


“Any government is free to the people under it, whatever be the 
frame, where the laws rule and the people are a party to those 
laws; and more than this is Tyranny, Oligarchy and Confusion.” 
— Penn's Frame of Government. 

“All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments 
are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, 
safety, and happiness. For the advancement of these ends, they 
have, at all times, an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, 
reform, or abolish their government, in such manner as they may 
think proper.”— Constitution of Pennsylvania , Art. 1, Sec. 2. 

“It may pass for a maxim that administration cannot be placed 
in too few hands, nor the legislation in too many.”— Swift. 

“Interpretation of law is a science; law-making is not.”— Hon. 
John IV. Griggs, Attorney General of the United States. 

Crying Need of Legislative Reform. 

Daniel Webster, in his famous debate with Hayne, said: 

“The mariner, when tossed about for many days, in thick 
weather, and on an unknown sea, naturally avails himself of 
the first break in the storm, the earliest glance at the sun, to 
take his latitude and ascertain how far the elements have 
driven him from his true course. Let us imitate this prudence 
and, ere we drift further on the waves of this debate, refer 
back to the point from whence we started, that we may at 
least conjecture where we now are.” 

Applying this thought, it would seem profitable for every 
friend of clean politics and good government to stop and ask 
himself: “What shall we as a people do to be saved from Boss 
rule and Ring politics; from the giving away of valuable fran¬ 
chises without adequate compensation on the one hand, and 
high and excessive taxation on the other?” That present con¬ 
ditions in our State, and especially our municipal politics are 
such as to excite grave apprehensions, no intelligent student of 
the times can deny. 

Horticulturists tell us there is a certain point up to which 
it is possible to arrest decay in fruit. Beyond that it is im¬ 
possible. Just so in the body politic. Either we must find 







2 


■5 f ^ 
J ,\x v 


some effectual remedy for the corruption now rampant, or 
of corruption reap corruption, and go the way of Rome and 
other great nations that have preceded us. That the corrup¬ 
tion exists and is sapping and undermining our institutions 
hardly needs proof. Men and newspapers of all parties and all 
factions add their voice to the general cry of: “Wherewith 
shall we cleanse our way?” The question must be answered, 
for already more than twenty-five per cent, of our citizens 
belong to the stay-at-home party, which every election num¬ 
bers more than before. Says Joseph Cook: “Class secession 
may be even more dangerous to our government than geo¬ 
graphical secession;” and this is practically class secession by 
those who can least be spared—the intelligent and moral busi¬ 
ness and professional men. This almost criminal neglect of 
all political duties by so many of the better class of citizens 
can be traced to a growing conviction of the hopelessness of 
effecting any real or permanent reform in government. Wliat 
men cease to hope for they cease to ivish for. 


n zj 


Failure of Past Efforts* 


This growing hopelessness (which must be arrested if the 
political atmosphere is to be cleared and purified) to some 
minds is due as much to a mistake in the methods employed 
in the past to accomplish reform as to any other cause. We 
have had Citizens Unions, Business Men’s Leagues, Commit¬ 
tees of One Hundred, Committees of Fifty, and other organi¬ 
zations too numerous to mention, only to find ourselves to-day 
with a greater task on our hands than ever before! Where 
has been the mistake? Certainly not in the sincerity and 
earnestness of those who have labored in these movements, 
but rather in working simply for a change of men or party 
while we leave the system , the real source of corruption, un¬ 
changed and unattacked. With Victor Hugo we say: “To 
give a new shape to the evil is not a useful task. To remodel 
the old slavery would be stupid.” The nihilists of Russia ap¬ 
parently have learned a lesson that they who would bring 
about pure and popular government in this country must 
learn. They say, according to an eminent nihilist authority: 
“Killing of czars is a waste of time; we could kill off two 
dozen czars and be no better off.” The system that makes 
czars possible is what must be aimed at. Men and parties are 
but administrators of the system under which they hold power. 
According to that system is their power for evil or good. As 
long as a system prevails whereby a few have the final de¬ 
cision in matters affecting the weal or woe of the entire people, 
just so long will the probabilities be that the decision will be 


5 ° 


er- 

o 


3 




C-C 

‘ i in the interest of the few who make the decision (or law), or 
A of that few who, in order to have the opportunities, through 
^ special legislation, to lay unjust burdens upon the mass of the 
people, are willing to give a portion of the spoils to the few 
who have the decision. William Penn, the founder of the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, showed clearly his apprecia¬ 
tion of this danger, for we find him, in submitting to the free¬ 
men of the province his Frame of Government, saying: “For 
the matters of liberty and privilege I purpose that which is 
extraordinary, and leave myself and successors no power of 
doing mischief, that the will of one man may not hinder the 
good of a whole community.” Just so long as our executives 
and legislators remain free from the direct control of the 
people, just so long will the lobby be maintained, corporations 
continue to be enthroned in power, franchises “grabbed,” pub¬ 
lic plundering be carried on, and the corruption born of that 
condition of affairs continue, the logical sequence being the 
downfall of free government. History is emphatic on this 
point. 

Is There an Effectual Remedy ? 

Does the reader ask: “What is then the remedy for all this 
rottenness? Is there a plan of government—a plan that is 
practicable, that has been tried and found to be perfect after 
which we can copy?” Yes, in Switzerland such a plan can be 
found. We went to far-off Australia for a ballot law; now 
let us follow the Swiss in their method of legislation. 

The Swiss Republic, some years ago, was as boss ridden 
and as corrupt in every way as is ours at the present time. 
Their system of legislation was indirect, or representative, 
precisely like our own, and few who made claim to respec¬ 
tability could be induced to hold office, for there then, as 
here now, to be known as a politician was to be in rather bad 
odor. There, as here, futile efforts were made to purify poli¬ 
tics. At length some radical change of system was seen to be 
necessary to permanently establish good government, and, in 
sequence, what is known as “Direct Legislation through the 
Initiative and Referendum” was devised, and after a bitter 
contest with the corruptionists, was put in operation. 

The adoption of Direct Legislation, however far-reaching 
the effects of such a change might prove to be, involves the 
adoption of no new principle in our form of government. It 
would be merely the extension of a principle which lies at the 
basis of our political system, and which is already recognized 
in practice. The Hew England “town meeting” is a notable 
example of this fact. Indeed in Pennsylvania direct law¬ 
making by the people is as old as the Commonwealth itself, 


4 


the first Constitution having been the work of a General 
Assembly consisting of all the freemen of the province. In 
the words of another writer: 

“By this frame the General Assembly was the first year to 
consist of all the freemen of the province. Accordingly we may 
say that the Assembly which convened at Upland on the 7th, and 
adjourned on the 10th, of December, 1682, was the meeting of a 
pure democracy. It would have been a solemn and touching sight 
to one who could have foreseen all its consequences in the distant 
future—that first meeting. They came together, the pioneers 
of the wilderness—stern, grave and earnest men—prepared for 
toil, privation and danger—men of moral rather than mere physi¬ 
cal courage—their hands hardened by the Axe’s unwearied stroke 
in felling the primeval forest and raising their rude cabins—and 
there, within the hearing of the yellings of wandering savages of 
untried disposition, they adopted, in the short space of three days, 
sixty-one laws, many of them, indeed all of them, the foundation 
stones upon which has since been erected the superstructure of the 
civil and criminal jurisprudence of this broad commonwealth.” 

Many instances of the employment of the Referendum in 
municipal, county, and state affairs have been noted by vari¬ 
ous writers. There are few voters who have not had, at one 
time or another, the opportunity to vote directly upon such 
matters as local option, loan bills, no-fence laws, location of 
county seat, amendments to State Constitution, etc. This 
is the Referendum. We merely wish to extend it. 


What is Direct Legislation? 

Direct Legislation comprehends: 

1st. The Initiative; by which a certain per cent, (say five 
per cent.) of the citizens can compel the submitting to the 
people any new legislation they may desire, but which the law¬ 
makers fail or refuse to act upon. 

2d. The Referendum; meaning that upon demand of a 
certain per cent, (say five per cent.) of the citizens in the dis¬ 
trict affected, any measure passed by the law-making body 
shall be submitted to a direct vote of the people for approval 
or disapproval at the next election. 

3d. The Recall; by which a majority of voters may recall 
any public official who is unfaithful to his duties. 

Our immediate aim will be: 

1st. To have enacted by the State Legislature a law allow¬ 
ing citizens of municipalities to invoke the Initiative and 
Referendum in local affairs. 

2d. To secure the adoption of an amendment to the State 
Constitution granting the use of the Initiative and Referen¬ 
dum in State affairs. 

We take it for granted that the reader will admit the right- 


fulness of Direct Legislation. The right to send a represen¬ 
tative to councils or legislature to execute a commission or 
make a law, implies the right of the senders themselves to 
execute the commission or make the law. To say that the 
people (from whom is derived all power) are not entitled to 
revise or veto the acts of their representatives is to say that 
the creature is greater than its creator. 

Advantages Accruing- from Direct Legislation. 

We desire now to point out a few of the many advantages 
to be derived by adopting Direct Legislation through the 
Initiative and Referendum. 

1st. It gives the vantage ground to honesty. 

A skillful general always seeks to get the advantage of 
position before beginning the battle. At present reformers 
are attempting to win a victory against the enemy while allow¬ 
ing that enemy to retain all the vantage ground. 

An employer of Chinese labor in California said they were 
not dangerous when angry because theywould pick up a board 
ten or fifteen feet long and try to strike their opponents with 
it. Reformers have too long followed the Chinese tactics. 
What we need is a club —a short, stout club. 

The credulous fool staking his money upon the result of 
games played with loaded dice or marked cards has a better 
chance of success than reformers under the present system 
with its “fixed primaries” and so-called representative bodies 
subject to deadlock, to caucus manipulation, to boss dictation, 
to log-rolling, to trickery, and to evasion of issues endangering 
party or the re-election of representatives. A Governor with 
the veto, a Senate with power to shelve House bills, a Lower 
House with ward heelers as members—here is a law-making 
machine capitally adapted to defeat or pervert the will of the 
people, and requiring a maximum of effort to secure a mini¬ 
mum of result. To none of these evils is direct majority rule 
subject. 

2d. It is practical. 

Direct Legislation means simply the establishment in law¬ 
making generally, the simple principle of fair play which pre¬ 
vails at any meeting of any body of men that passes resolu¬ 
tions or makes rules, whether such meeting is a public gather¬ 
ing, a co-operative society, a lodge of Freemasons, or a trades- 
union. By this principle a member of the body rises in the 
meeting and moves the adoption of a proposition. Another 
member seconds his motion. The chairman next submits it to 
the house. Lastlv the whole body abides by the decision of 
the majority. How, we propose that those voters of com- 


6 


munity, State, or nation who are to obey any law shall have 
precisely the rights thus exercised at such a meeting. Em¬ 
ploying the terms adopted by the Swiss and accepted in the 
domain of political economy, we call the proposing of a law 
the Initiative and the voting on the proposed law the Refer¬ 
endum. Since the voters themselves thus directly make the 
law, the whole process is called Direct Legislation. 

3d. It is permanent. 

Life is short. What we do we desire to see endure. Under 
the present system, put a new man or a new party in power 
and in a few years at most we find things in even a worse con¬ 
dition. The memory of any man 30 years of age and up¬ 
ward proves this. To change the system is the essential thing. 
The present system, by centering power in the hands of from 
one to two hundred men to grant special legislation worth 
millions, or to spend large sums of the people’s money, gives 
every inducement to wrong-doing. Few men, however hon¬ 
est, could resist the terrible pressure brought to bear on men 
possessing such power as we give our law-makers and execu¬ 
tives. Corrupt men will spend large sums of money to get 
this power, and its resulting opportunity to become quickly 
wealthy. Let a new party, however pure, get in power, and 
in a short time the “boodlers,” “wire-pullers,” and “plug- 
uglies” in general of the defeated parties, caring nothing for 
principle and going only where power can be found, will be 
in the new party, and by reason of their unscrupulous exper¬ 
ience gained in their old party, in a short time they will be 
found dictating the nominations and policy of the new party. 
The purer and more disinterested the rank and file of this 
new party, the easier for shrewd and corrupt men to secure 
and maintain control of it. 

4th. It tends to separate politics from legislation. 

This means both better men and better laws. Each law 
will be adopted on its merits. Row it is a case of “you vote 
for my bill and I will vote for yours.” Under Direct Legis¬ 
lation a man will not have to vote for one or more things he 
does not approve in order to vote for another thing he does 
approve; nor does he have to help elect some black-leg or 
trickster to the position of councilman, sheriff, legislator, etc., 
in order to save the tariff, free trade, free silver, sound money, 
etc. S. E. Moffett, editor of the San Francisco Examiner, in 
his book: “Suggestions on government,” makes this thought 
very clear. lie says: 

“Suppose, for instance, that my ideas of a national ‘policy,’ quan¬ 
titatively expressed, run like this: 


7 


* 


Tariff reform. 100 

Opposition to silver coinage. 99 

Economy in government. 80 

Annexation of Hawaii. 50 

Extension of civil-service laws. 50 

Strong navy . 40 


419 

Suppose that my party meets my wishes on tariff reform and 
economy (one hundred and eighty), and the other party on silver, 
Hawaii, and the navy (one hundred and eighty-nine), while neither 
takes a satisfactory position on the civil service (fifty). Then, 
if I vote for my party, I vote for a policy of which I approve of 
only one hundred and eighty parts and disapprove of two hun¬ 
dred and thirty-nine; and if I vote for the other I vote for a policy 
of which I approve of only one hundred and eighty-nine parts and 
disapprove of two hundred and thirty. Thus my net satisfaction 
is fifty-nine less than nothing in one case and forty-one less than 
nothing in the other. And, moreover, the situation is almost cer¬ 
tain to be still further complicated by the nomination of candi¬ 
dates whom I do not consider fit to hold office, but for whom I 
must vote as the only way of exerting an influence on the choice 
of any policy at all. If the people were allowed to vote on meas¬ 
ures as well as on men, I could exert my full power at the polls 
in favor of the whole four hundred and nineteen points of the 
policy T desired to see carried out, and, in addition, I could vote 
for the candidate I thought best qualified for legislative business, 
regardless of his opinions on disputed political issues.” 

5th. It makes the people the real, instead of nominal, 
masters. 

As has been well said: 

“When the vote granting a franchise binds us forever, and our 
representative can get $50,000 for his vote while we only give him 
from $300 to $1,000 for his year’s work (even if we should re-elect 
him), where is his responsibility? 

“The State or city is our farm. At present we give our servants 
(legislators, aldermen) almost unlimited power over it—power to 
mar it; power to mortgage it—reserving to ourselves scarcely any 
power, except to discharge them after the harm is fully accom¬ 
plished. 

“The city is our stable, which we commit to these servants, re¬ 
serving to ourselves only the power to discharge them after they 
have allowed our horses to be stolen. 

“The Constitution is our pasture fence; the State is our car¬ 
riage; our legislators are our horses. With the present arrange^ 
ments, we harness our horses, hitch them (often wild colts) to 
our carriage, throw away lines and whip and trust ourselves to 
the tender mercies of Providence, which is supposed to have special 
care of half-witted people. Our horses may balk or lie down in 
the harness; or they may wildly tear over the pasture, down steep 
gullies, over rocky roads, and finally knock our brains out; but 
we have all the time the comforting assurance that our horses will 
be found somewhere within the limits of the seven-rail pasture 
fence called the Constitution. With the Initiative and the Referen¬ 
dum we would be at all times masters of the situation, keeping the 
government constantly in our own hands. 

“Our legislators are our cooks, and now we must not only pay 
them their salaries, but also eat all they cook for us. Ugh! The nas- 









8 


tiness of some of the messes we have been made to swallow. With 
the Referendum, when they set before us some unsavory dish, we 
say: ‘No, thank you,’ and pass it by. With the Initiative, when 
they refuse to cook for us, we make out a bill of fare and have our 
meals cooked to order. 

•‘The People have concluded that making law by proxy is even 
more unsatisfactory than making love by proxy, and so will soon 
proceed to make laws, as they make love, in person, which is simply 
the Initiative and the Referendum .” 

6th. It icill increase respect for the law. 

Impartial observers have long noted the growing non-en¬ 
forcement and non-respect for law manifested in the United 
States. Especially is this true in the cities. Every non-en- 
forced law is a silent but powerful teacher of anarchy. This 
open disregard for law is due largely to a conviction fast per¬ 
meating all classes, that they have no part in the law-making, 
and that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. 
Give to every citizen, by the Initiative and Referendum, an 
equal voice in the making of law, and the result will be an 
ever increasing respect for all law, and the erection of a bul¬ 
wark against riot and revolution. “Revolution has little 
chance where the people can easily mold law.” 

7th. It would facilitate reform. 

Every meritorious plank in the Republican, Democratic, 
Populist, Liberist, Prohibition, or other platforms, would be 
more certain of speedy adoption under Direct Legislation than 
under the present methods. Row we not only have to con¬ 
vert the voter to the desired reform, but also to convince him 
that its adoption is of such importance that he must be willing 
to see other issues or candidates he may be friendly to de¬ 
feated, if need be, in order to get the one reform. By means 
of Direct Legislation the voter can vote directly for what he 
favors, without sacrificing other things that he favors, nor 
embracing men or measures obnoxious to him. 

8th. It makes a united people. 

To the “radicals” it means a fair chance. When their “hob¬ 
bies” have reached a reasonable degree of support they can be 
submitted on their merits. To the conservatives it means that 
a question must be able to stand the cross-fire of open discus¬ 
sion before being adopted. This, coupled with the fact that 
the masses of the people move slowly in making changes, 
would tend to defeat any rash legislation. Thus, while the 
“radicals” will be satisfied, the “conservatives” will be safe, 
for the masses of the people are really conservative. The 
people will up-root dishonesty with a bold hand when given 
an opportunity, but when it comes to new and untried 
measures, the people are very cautious. There is not an in¬ 
stance on record where a majority of the voters have, by means 


9 


of Direct Legislation, favored rash measures. Indeed, a pro¬ 
fessor of political economy in one of our leading eastern insti¬ 
tutions recently said in confidence to a friend that he objected 
to Direct Legislation because it is “too conservative.” So the 
conservatives need not fear it, and the radicals want it It 
is the only possible point of union for these classes. Only the 
“boodlers” and corruptionists fear it; they, only, will op¬ 
pose it 

Possible Objections and Questions. 

In conclusion we desire to answer a few possible questions 
and objections that may be raised by the reader. We desire 
every sentence tested by the plumb-line of logic and history. 

How would you proceed to use the Initiative under this 
system? 

If a Legislature or other law-making body refuses to act, 
acts unfavorably, or fails to act, upon a measure which is de¬ 
sired by a number of the people, the latter would have the 
right to submit to the proper authorities a petition signed by 
a specified per cent, of the total number of voters, requesting 
that such a law be submitted to the people for a vote. This 
petition would be a command, and the authorities to whom 
the petition is submitted have no choice in the matter, but 
are compelled to comply, and submit such a law to a vote of 
the entire people in the district affected by the law, at the 
next election. 

The people vote upon the question so submitted exactly as 
they now do upon an amendment to the constitution. If a 
majority of the votes cast on this question are in favor of the 
measure, it is thereby enacted into law without any further 
action on the part of the legislature. 

This is called the Initiative, because under this the people 
have the right to initiate or begin legislation. 

How would you use the Referendum? 

Under the system of Direct Legislation, the legislature or 
other law-making body will proceed to enact such laws as the 
members deem proper, just as they do at the present time, but 
no law so enacted (except sometimes certain bills which are 
called emergency measures) can become operative for a certain- 
period. This period is usually about sixty days. If during 
this time there is no objection to a law it goes into operation 
and is binding and in force until repealed. But if during this 
period of suspended operation any of the people object to a 
law, they can present a petition signed by a certain percentage 
of the total number of voters requesting that such law shall, 
before it goes in operation, be submitted to the people for a 
vote. The presentation of this petition properly signed sus- 


10 


pends the operation of the law until after an election is held, 
and compels the submission of the law to a popular vote the 
same as under the Initiative. If at the election tne law re¬ 
ceives a majority of the votes cast on the question it goes into 
effect without further delay. If it fails to receive a majority 
of the votes cast it is rejected and is void. 

What percentage should be required to invoke the Initia¬ 
tive or Referendum? 

This is a detail, not affecting the principle itself. The per 
cent, should be large enough to prevent “every Tom, Dick 
and Harry” from compelling the people to vote on such 
schemes as making grocers paint their wagons black, and yet 
on the other hand should not be large enough to prevent a 
free exercise of power on the part of the people. The general 
consensus of opinion is that five per cent, is about right. Any 
person who has endeavored to secure signatures to nomina¬ 
tion papers (as in Pennsylvania, where any citizen can sign 
without committing himself to anything, and where it only 
requires two per cent, to secure a place on the ballot) can 
understand that there would have to exist much active senti¬ 
ment in favor of a measure to secure the signatures of five 
per cent, of the citizens to a demand for the Initiative or 
Referendum. Eltweed Pomeroy, in The Hew Time (June, 
1898). concerning this question, says: 

“Ordinary petitions usually concern a personality; Direct Legis¬ 
lation concerns a measure. The feelings of friendship, and that 
somebody else is responsible for the action, are enlisted for the 
first; a man has to be convinced of the wisdom of a measure and 
feel the responsibility of deciding before he’ll sign a Direct Legis¬ 
lation petition. Signatures to ordinary petitions are usually per¬ 
sonal, always irresponsible, generally ineffective and easy to obtain; 
signatures to Direct Legislation petitions can only be obtained by 
convincing a man of the wisdom of the measure, they are respon¬ 
sible, effective and hard to obtain, and of course they are far more 
educational. Hence the common argument: “Oh, any one will sign 
a petition,” does not hold of Direct Legislation petitions. The 
number should be made small. In fact, unless the Direct Legisla¬ 
tion measure deals with a class of communities of varying size, I 
would prefer a fixed number instead of a percentage; it is more 
definite and understandable. Thus the city of Geneva, Switzerland, 
with about 80,000 population, requires 1,200 signatures to Direct 
Legislation petitions. And the larger the community acting under 
Direct Legislation, the smaller should be the percentage. Thus Swit¬ 
zerland, with a population of nearly 5,000,000, requires 30,000 signa¬ 
tures for referendum petitions and 50,000 signatures for initiative 
petitions. I don’t think that in an ordinary American State the 
number should be over 5 per cent., and I would prefer to make it 
15,000 to 30,000. In the nation it should not be over 1 per cent., at 
the most 2 per cent., and I would prefer an exact number, such a* 
100 , 000 .” 

Would not this method entail great expense? 

How could it? Most of the Referendums would be taken 


11 


only at tlie regular elections. The title or number of the law 
could be printed in one line on the ballot with a space opposite 
to vote .“yes” or “no.” The only expense would be for print¬ 
ing copies of the proposed law for distribution to those asking 
for it previous to election day. “One piece of jobbery defeat¬ 
ed, or one legislative steal prevented, would more than repay 
any possible cost of this system.” 

How do we blow that Direct Legislation will do what is 
claimed for it ? 

By what it has done in Switzerland, once corrupt, but to¬ 
day the model Republic of the world. The only country in 
Europe from which one does not hear continually stories of 
strikes, panics and “lock-outs,” and in which the “lobby” has 
been destroyed, and men are re-elected to office term after 
term (regardless of their party) because of their being able 
men. Bead J. W. Sullivan’s book on the history and effects 
of this reform in Switzerland. Send 10 cents to “ The 
Coming Nation,” Buskin, Tenn., for this book. 

Has the movement made any progress in the United 
States? 

Yes. Bills have been offered in both branches of Congress 
along this line. South Dakota this fall (1898) will vote on 
an amendment to the State Constitution applying Direct Leg¬ 
islation to state and municipal affairs. Nebraska has an im¬ 
perfect form of the law, by which 20 per cent, of the citi¬ 
zens can invoke the Initiative and Referendum in municipal 
affairs. This percentage has proved to be too high for prac¬ 
tical use. 

In state after state a Direct Legislation bill has received a 
majority vote in either one or both branches of the legisla¬ 
ture, failing to become law in some cases only for want of 
the required three-fourths or two-thirds majority. Governors 
of several states, belonging to all parties, are earnest advocates 
of it. San Francisco has a Direct Legislation clause in the 
new charter just adopted. The mayors of Denver (Col.), Wil¬ 
liamsport, Pa., Toledo, 0., Des Moines, la., Detroit, Mich., 
Duluth, Minn., and many other large-sized cities advocate the 
principle. All Industrial and Farmers organizations have it 
in their declaration of principles, while members of Municipal 
Leagues and many similar organizations are becoming con¬ 
verts. The editors of the San Francisco Examiner, New York 
Journal, Denver News, Boston Transcript, Philadelphia Item, 
and other papers are active supporters of the movement, and 
such great and conservative dailies as the Dallas News, New 

Later: The above mentioned amendment to the South Dakota constitution was carried 
by a vote of about two to one. 


12 


York Post, New York Sun, and Philadelphia Ledger, are very 
favorable to it. All this in addition to some 3,000 weeklies 
and monthlies which are working earnestly for the cause of 
Direct Legislation. 

Would you not encounter the same difficulties in getting 
Direct Legislation as in getting other desirable legislation f 

It is always difficult to get any law passed; and doubtless 
the opposition of the enemies of the people to Direct Legis¬ 
lation would be felt; but this will be done only in concealed 
and underhanded ways, for they dare not opeply oppose a 
thing so fair and just as Direct Legislation. On the other 
hand, we will have the united help of all classess interested 
in honesty and fair play, for this cause unites all classes from 
the most ultra conservative to the extremest radical. All we 
need to do is to spread the light. No honest man opposes it 
when he understands it. Usually its principles can be made 
clear in a ten minute talk. This usually makes a convert, 
no difference to what political party the convert may belong. 
Then give him literature and he will inform himself concern¬ 
ing the subject, and soon will take an active part in the move¬ 
ment by talking to his friends about it and distributing litera¬ 
ture. Earnest reformers anxious to unite all in a common 
effort for the public good become awfully discouraged in such 
attempts, until they investigate Direct Legislation, which they 
find to be the reform of all reforms, and the only one upon 
which all can unite. This fact is it great strength. Its adop¬ 
tion is certain as soon as the people are instructed concerning 
it. Then it mil lead to all other desirable reforms. Can 
anything be more important than this? Let everyone lend 
a determined hand to realize it as soon as possible. 

Is there any just reason for considering ivork for Direct 
Legislation as of more importance than for other desirable 
legislation ? 

Yes, in that Direct Legislation is the key to the whole situa¬ 
tion. Get the key to the situation and the battle can be 
fought out in detail with all the advantages on the side of he 
who holds the key. Direct Legislation is not a measure; it 
is a method whereby all measures can be assured a fair hear¬ 
ing. The true music teacher does not select one or two 
pieces for the pupils to learn, but keeps them pegging away, 
practicing the scales, knowing that the scales once learned 
thoroughly, the pupils can then play any selection from sight. 

Could not Direct Legislation be a great success in Swit¬ 
zerland and yet not be applicable to a nation of seventy 
million of people? 

The writer has interviewed a number of prominent busi- 


ness and professional men, many of whom have traveled 
through Switzerland. They all admit its great success there, 
but sometimes ask the above question. We answer that we 
do not propose at this time to apply Direct Legislation to 
national affairs. What we propose first is its application to 
municipal affairs, then to the state, and when the people get 
accustomed to its use in municipal and state affairs, it can 
perhaps be applied to national legislation. Men must get 
used to handling sharp tools before undertaking large tasks 
with them. Municipal life touches the people a hundred 
times where state or national matters touch them but once. 
So we say, let us apply Direct Legislation first to municipal 
affairs, for here is where we most need emancipating; then 
to state affairs, and after that we can make a larger use of it, 
if such use then seems practicable. 

If men now buy the law-makers , ivill they not , under 
Direct Legislation , simply buy up the voters? 

When men are determined to do wrong, make it as difficult 
as possible to do the wrong. Under the system now in force 
all that is necessary many times is to get a favorable report 
from the committee (of from seven to twenty-five men) to 
whom a bill is committed for examination. The main body, 
in the press of time, is usually guided by the report of that 
committee. It is immeasurably easier to buy one, seven, 
twenty-five, or two hundred and four men than it is to buy 
from ten thousand to a million men. 

Suppose the people could be bought; it would not be a safe 
or profitable operation, for, under Direct Legislation, the 
vigorous minority which would be sure to develop under such 
circumstances Gould in a reasonable time compel the re-sub¬ 
mitting of the question. The side of right is the one that has 
nothing to lose by continued agitation (which means educa¬ 
tion). The side that depends upon bribery and corruption is 
the one that deprecates agitation. The more checks and bal¬ 
ances on public opinion the better pleased are they. 

Would not the people be kept busy voting on laws? 

R. S. Thompson, in his valuable book, “A Pure Democ¬ 
racy,” (Hew Era Co., Springfield, Ohio; five cents,) answers 
the above question thus: 

“The number of laws sent down would not be very great. 

Probably ninety-five per cent, of the work of a legislature is 
purely routine work, concerning- which there would be no contro¬ 
versy and no demand that the matters be submitted to a vote. 
Such laws would become operative “by consent” after the expira¬ 
tion of the required time. A few laws of g-eneral importance would 
probably be all that would have to be voted on in any one year. 

In Switzerland, where Direct Legislation is in operation, the num¬ 
ber of laws voted on each year is not larg-e, but they are the im¬ 
portant laws which concern the whole people. 


14 


At present many vicious laws are quietly slipped through the 
legislatures. Members who wish to get through some special act 
agree with other members to help them. “We will vote for your 
scheme if you will vote for ours,” is the plan on which a great deal 
of bad legislation is accomplished. 

Under Direct Legislation these laws would not be passed at all, 
and therefore the people w T ould not be called on to vote on them. 
There would be no object in passing a law which would be sure to 
occasion a demand for the referendum, and which would be cer¬ 
tainly defeated under the referendum.” 

We now in certain years vote for as high as 47 candidates 
on one ticket. At best it is guess-work or hear-say as to what 
kind of men they may be, it being almost impossible in large 
districts to know fully concerning their character, ability, etc. 
It is far easier to vote intelligently on measures than men. 

Would it not be a better plan to nominate good men by 
attending the party primaries? 

Ho, even if it were possible. The best of men are liable 
to fall under the terrible temptations incident to the present 
system. But the chance of nominating the better man is only 
one in fifty, and the chance of electing him one in one hun¬ 
dred. Corruption knows no party. Its party is that one 
which best serves its purposes. Nominate your good men and 
the corruptionists have no compunction in bolting the ticket; 
while the more honorable voter, having taken part in the pri¬ 
mary, feels in honor bound to support “the straight ticket,” 
even tho his good man may not have been nominated. The 
division heeler knows this; hence his anxiety to get the honest 
voter to the primaries. The heeler and his friends are making 
politics a business. One election is not yet over before the 
wires are being “set up” for the next convention. They are 
agreed on whom to support. The good citizens, on the con¬ 
trary, are so occupied with the task of making a living that at 
best they can give but a small fraction of time to politics. As 
a result of tins they are unable to tell as to who are in 
sympathy with them in their precinct; and hence scatter their 
fire. The machine worker, under these circumstances, can be 
perfectly content, knowing that when an unorganized mob 
meet a well-drilled army, the result can be nothing else than 
defeat for the mob, however excellent the motives and char¬ 
acter of those who compose the mob. The remedy is to der- 
stroy the system that gives the machine its power. 

Can the people le trusted? 

“Some say that man cannot be trusted with the govern¬ 
ment of himself. Can he then be trusted with the govern¬ 
ment of others? Or have we found angels in the persons of 
kings to govern them? Let history answer this question.” 
(Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address.; 


15 


“The people are not informed sufficiently on public ques¬ 
tions to i^ote correctly.” 

Because a wolf may be the best judge of mutton is not an 
argument for allowing him to guard the flock. Men not wise 
enough to make laws for themselves are hardly wise enough 
to be trusted to select other men to make laws for them. The 
fact that our courts are kept busy setting aside laws made by 
our “wise men” would suggest that it might not hurt to give 
the common people a chance. 

That in over thirty states the people have succeeded in 
having their legislature meet bi-ennially instead of annually 
speaks volumes. 

The beardless youth of twenty may know little about the 
management of babies; but give him a home of his own and if 
there is aught of the man in him it will come to the surface. 
Direct Legislation places the school by the side of the ballot 
box. Even tho a question should be decided unwisely, the 
mistake could be remedied at an early period through the use 
of the Initiative. 

The people would not take interest enough to vote. 

The proper punishment for a failure to vote for good officers 
or good measures in a fair contest is to be subject to bad ones. 
If good citizens do not take sufficient interest in their own 
affairs to vote, it is fitting that the persons who do take enough 
interest to vote should be allowed to have their own way. But 
it has not yet been proven that good citizens will not vote. 
When you take boodle out of politics the bad citizen (who 
goes into anything simply for what’s in it) is more likely to 
cease voting than the good citizen, who votes from patriotic 
motive. 

TKe people don't want to make their own laws. (Said by 
Hon. John W. Griggs, Attorney General of the United States, 
to be the chief argument against D. L.) 

The fact that so many of the people go to the polls with 
all the chances against them, and are forced to submit to all 
sorts of inconvenience to accomplish imperceptible results, or 
no results at all proves this contention unsound and untrue. 
“If they vote under present circumstances it is not unreasona¬ 
ble to assume that they will be willing to take a considerably 
smaller share of trouble when they know that under the 
changed system they will be able to exert a direct and material 
influence upon the management of public affairs in all their 
ramifications, state, local, and national.” 

Remember we do not propose to abolish the present law-making 
bodies (Legislatures , Councils , etc.). We simply propose to put in 
the hands of the people the same power of command or veto that 
every employer retains and excercises toward his employees. 


Solicit your representative in the 
State Legislature to favor giving Direct 
Legislation to cities and towns by vot¬ 
ing for a law something like this: 

No ordinance (except such as emer¬ 
gency may require for the immediate 
preservation of the public peace, health 
or safety, which must be passed by 
three-fourths majority) shall go into 
effect until 30 days after its passage, 
nor until voted upon at the polls if 
within the said 30 days a referendum is 
demanded by 5 per cent, of the legal 
voters of the municipality as shown by 
the total vote at the last preceding- 
election. 

Upon petition of 5 per cent, of the 
legal voters of any municipality in the 

State of.. 

as shown by the total vote at the last 
preceding election, any measure may 
be submitted to the municipal legisla¬ 
tive body, which must act upon the 
same without amendment. Should the 
measure fail, for any reason, it may be 
referred to a direct vote as provided in 
the preceding section. 


Solicit your representative in the 
State Legislature to favor Direct Legis¬ 
lation for the State by voting for the 
submission of an amendment to the 
constitution something like this : 

No law (except such as emergency 
may require for the immediate preser¬ 
vation of the public peace, health or 
safety, which shall require a three- 
fourths majority) shall go into effect 
until 60 days after its passage, nor until 
voted upon at the polls, if within said 
60 days a referendum is demanded by 
2 per cent, of the legal voters of the 
State, as shown by the total vote at the 
last preceding election. 

Upon petition of 2 per cent, of the 

legal voters of the State of... 

as shown by the total vote at the last 
preceding election, any measure may 
be submitted to the Legislature, which 
must act upon the same without amend¬ 
ment. Should the measure fail, for any 
reason, it may be referred to a direct vote 
as provided in the preceding section. 

Whenever any law or part of a law 
shall have been declared unconstitu¬ 
tional by any State court, the Execu¬ 
tive shall submit it to all the voters the 
same as if it had been initiated by 2 
per cent, and if approved by a majority 
of those voting thereon, it shall become 
a law of the State, notwithstanding 
anything in the constitution to the con¬ 
trary. 


The above is, of course, only suggestive. Any variation desired may be 
made. It should be provided that the Referendum, when demanded, shall take 
place at the next regular election, but that a special election may be demanded 
by double the number of petitioners required for a Referendum. 

A Direct Legislation League should be formed in every state, and these 
Leagues should be non-partisan in method and interpartisan in membership. 
The Pennsylvania League has among its officers and members prominent Repub¬ 
licans, Democrats, Populists, Prohibitionists, etc. For example, Ex-Governor 
Robt. E. Pattison, Ex-Postmaster General John Wanamaker, Rev. Russell H. 
Conwell, James Mansel, Mayor of Williamsport, Hon. Wm. Tricket, of Carlisle, 
Senator C. C. Kauffman, of Columbia, N. Penrose Allen, Geo. Burnham, Jr., 
Tlios. Martindale, Walter Wood, A. R. Mcllvain, Wm. E. Haines, Dr. S. Solis- 
Cohen, Marshall E. Smith and many others. Finley Acker is Temporary Presi¬ 
dent, and C. F. Taylor, M. D., 1520 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, is Secretary and 
Treasurer, to whom inquiries may be sent. 

What better can you do than to order this pamphlet in large numbers (see 
price on title page) and convert all your friends to Direct Legislation. We can 
mail directly from here if you will send list of names with order. No extra 
charge for this service. Put a copy in every letter that you write. 


“ Equity Series” is devoted to advanced and progressive presentation 
of public questions. It is published quarterly at $1 per year, including occasional 
extra numbers (this issue is an “extra”). Vol. I, No. I, issued Sept., 1898, is 
entitled 44 Rational Money.’’ It is the newest work on the money question, 
and the only one that presents the ultimate solution of the money question, which 
is just and fair to the producers of gold, silver and every other commodity. It 
offers a basis upon which the gold and silver men can unite. Study up on this 
for the campaign of 1900, and before the next panic. Price of “Rational 
Money” alone without the rest of the series is 25c. C. F. Taylor, Publisher 
1520 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, Pa. 

Future numbers will be devoted to municipal problems, the transportation 
question, the land question, etc. 









